"OF MICE AND MEN"

Notes from a conference given in Barcelona on July 9, 2002

Etienne de Harven

I want to add a pessimistic vignette over 10 year of cancer research history, from 1970 until 1981, to help you all to understand that the 1981 paper by Michael Gottlieb was, most regrettably, …. dramatically predictable!

You surely all remember that, in June1981, Michael Gottlieb published in Mortality and Morbidity weekly report of the CDC a report on 5 cases of Pneumocystis Pneumonia observed among 5 active male homosexuals, each of them having used plenty of nitrite inhalants ("Poppers"), and each of them presenting with a much decreased number of circulating T cells. These five patients had never met each other. Still, the CDC immediately accepted that these five patients represented a "cluster", therefore giving credibility to the infectious disease hypothesis. The toxicity of nitrite inhalants did not receive any serious consideration…. The "invention" of HIV originated from that paper based on very poorly analyzed clinical data.

How come?

We have to remember the dark clouds hanging over cancer research between 1970 and 1981 to understand that this pathetically misleading paper was almost inevitable in view of the enormous pressures and frustrations cancer researchers were exposed to during that period of time. Of course there is no excuse whatsoever. Still, I believe that the climate I had the opportunity to witness from first balcony, while working at the Sloan Kettering Institute during all that time, helps to understand what Dave Rasnick described as the "Aids Blunder" that actually originated from misguided cancer research between 1970 and 1981. The invention of HIV resulted from the total failure of demonstrating any causal relationship between retroviruses and human cancer.

The 1970-1981 time has been characterized by many developments:

• The number of researchers devoting their full-time work to cancer research was increasing almost on a logarithmic scale;

• The methods used were more and more expensive;

• The level of research funding from NIH and from the main funding agencies was not increasing in a similar proportion;

• Consequently, cancer researchers were using 1/3 or more of their time to the drafting and submission of innumerable research grant applications;

• The majority of cancer research jobs had lost the relative employment stability which resulted in the past from academic teaching;

• The resulting fear and anxiety for their jobs pushed many cancer researchers to start considering private funding, mainly from major pharmaceutical corporations;

• Several most prestigious academic research leaders signed research contracts with pharmaceutical multinational giants;

• Pressures from "Big Pharma" on the orientation of research became more and more dominant and never stopped increasing ever since;

• The first major cases of research fraud in very high academic prestige institutions were reported, with full media coverage….;

• During Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign, the "War against Cancer" became a major political flag and was soon voted by the US congress, with direct emphasis and priority to massive funding for retroviral cancer research; as a consequence, Gallo’s laboratory at NIH took… imperial proportions;

• Unfortunately, by 1980, retrovirus-oriented cancer research had totally failed to produce any significant result, and the "War against cancer" was regarded as a disaster venture;

• The pressure on major retroviral cancer laboratories to justify their enormous budgets started to steadily increase;

• Drug addiction became a major life style change, particularly among the homosexual population;

• Immunosuppressive effects of hard drugs were known for several decades but were apparently not receiving any particular attention;

• At the CDC in Atlanta, no serious epidemics had justified the size of their budget since the days of polio;

• Not a single human disease had been significantly linked to the pathogenicity of any retrovirus;

• No surprise: the morale was pretty low among the retroviral cancer research community!

• But, in June 1981: Gottlieb’s paper! And in 1983: Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier’s paper!

Alleluia! Clusters made it for the infectious character of a new disease! Kaposi sarcoma made it not too distant from cancer! And a retrovirus was "isolated" in one case of a patient "at risk for AIDS".

No surprise that the majority of cancer researchers instantly jumped to HIV/AIDS research!

HIV had to be INVENTED! And it sure was!

No surprise: HIV/AIDS became, with the full blessing from "Big Pharma", the BIG BUSINESS cancer retrovirology had sorrowfully missed…..

You understand, now, why the history of AIDS research cannot be dissociated from the mishaps of cancer research between 1970 and 1981?

Thank you.

You can download an mp3 in French of EdH's comments on "Viromania" since the 60's & 70's